Changes

Through this coincidentia ''coincidentia oppositorum'' -- bringing together [[mathematics|mathematical theory]] and the intricate weave of the [[James Joyce|Joycean]] [[text ]] -- [[Lacan]] redefines the [[psychoanalytic]] [[symptom]] in [[terms ]] of his final [[topology]] of the [[subject]].  

Before the [[appearance ]] of [[sinthome]], divergent currents in [[Lacan]]'s [[thinking ]] lead to different inflections of the [[concept ]] of the [[symptom]].

As early as 1957, the [[symptom]] is said to be "inscribed in a writing [[process]],"<ref>{{Ec}} p.445</ref> which already implies a different view to that which regards the symptom as a ciphered [[message]].

In 1963 [[Lacan]] goes on to [[state ]] that the [[symptom]], unlike [[acting out]], does not call for [[interpretation]]; in itself, it is not a call to the [[Other]] but a pure ''[[jouissance]]'' addressed to no one.<ref>{{L}} 1962-3. ''[[Seminar X|Le Séminaire. Livre X. L'angoisse]]'', 1962-3, unpublished.</ref>

Such comments anticipate the radical transformation of Lacan's [[thought ]] implicit in his shift from the [[linguistic]] definition of the [[symptom]] - as a [[signifier]] - to his [[statement]], in the 1974-5 [[seminar]], that "the symptom can only be defined as the way in which each subject [[enjoys ]] [''jouit''] the unconscious, in so far as the unconscious determines him."<ref>{{L}} 1974-5. ''[[Seminar XXII|Le Séminaire. Livre XXII. RSI]]'', 1974-5, published in ''[[Ornicar?]]'', nos. 2-5, 1975.</ref>

=====Symptom as the Particular Modality of the Subject's ''Jouissance''=====This move from conceiving of the [[symptom]] as a [[message]] which can be deciphered by reference to the [[unconscious]] "[[structured ]] like a language," to [[seeing ]] it as the trace of the [[particular ]] modality of the [[subject]]'s ''[[jouissance]]'', culminates in the introduction of the term ''[[sinthome]]''.

Far from calling for some [[analytic ]] "[[dissolution]]," the ''[[sinthome]]'' is what "allows one to live" by providing a unique organisation of ''[[jouissance]]''.

=====Shift from Linguistics to Topology=====The [[theoretical ]] shift from [[linguistics]] to [[topology]] which marks the final period of Lacan's [[work ]] constitutes the [[true ]] status of the [[sinthome]] as unanalysable, and amounts to an exegetical problem beyond the familiar one of [[Lacan]]'s dense [[rhetoric]].

The 1975-6 [[seminar]] extends the [[theory ]] of the [[borromean knot]], which in the previous seminar had been proposed as the essential [[structure]] of the [[subject]], by adding the ''[[sinthome]]'' as a fourth ring to the [[triad]] of the [[real]], the [[symbolic]] and the [[imaginary]], tying together a [[knot]] which constantly threatens to come undone.  This [[knot]] is not offered as a [[model]] but as a rigorously non-[[metaphorical]] description of a [[topology]] "before which the [[imagination]] fails."<ref>{{L}} 195-6. ''[[Seminar XXIII|Le Séminaire. Livre XXIII. Le sinthome, 1975-76]]'', published in ''[[Ornicar]]?'', nos 6-11, 1976-7. 9 December 1975.</ref> Since [[meaning]] (''sens'') is already figured within the [[knot]], at the intersection of the [[symbolic]] and the [[imaginary]], it follows that the function of the ''[[sinthome]]'' -- intervening to [[knot]] together [[real]], [[symbolic]] and [[imaginary]] - is inevitably beyond [[meaning]]. =====Writings of James Joyce=====[[Lacan]] had been an enthusiastic reader of [[Joyce]] since his youth.<ref>{{Ec}} p.25; {{S20}} p.37</ref>  In the 1975-6 [[seminar]], [[Joyce]]'s [[writing]] is read as an extended ''[[sinthome]]'', a fourth term whose addition to the [[borromean knot]] of ''RSI'' allows the [[subject]] to cohere.  Faced in his [[childhood]] by the radical non-function / [[absence]] (''carence'') of the [[Name-of-the-Father]], [[Joyce]] managed to avoid [[psychosis]] by deploying his [[art]] as ''suppléance'', as a supplementary cord in the [[subject]]ive [[knot]].  [[Lacan]] focuses on [[Joyce]]'s youthful "epiphanies" (experiences of an almost [[hallucinatory]] intensity which were then recorded in enigmatic, fragmentary [[texts]]) as instances of "radical [[foreclosure]]," in which "the real forecloses meaning."<ref>[[Seminar]] of 16 March 1976</ref> ====="Destructive" Refashioning of Language=====The [[Joycean]] text -- from the epiphany to ''[[James Joyce|Finnegans Wake]]'' -- entailed a special relation to [[language]]; a "destructive" refashioning of it as ''[[sinthome]]'', the invasion of the [[symbolic order]] by the [[subject]]'s private ''[[jouissance]]''.  One of [[Lacan]]'s puns, ''[[sinthome|synth-homme]]'', implies this kind of "artificial" [[self]]-creation. =====Lacan's Engagement with Joyce's Writing=====[[Lacan]]'s engagement with [[Joyce]]'s writing does not, he insists, entail "applied [[psychoanalysis]]."  =====Topological Theory=====[[Topology|Topological theory]] is not conceived of as merely [[another]] kind of representational account, but as a [[form]] of writing, a praxis aiming to [[figure]] that which escapes the [[imaginary]].

This =====''Saint Homme''==========New Way of Using Language to Organize Enjoyment=====To that extent, rather than a theoretical [[knotobject]] is not offered as a model but as a rigorously non-metaphorical description of a or "[[topologycase]] ,"before which the imagination fails."<ref>{{L}} 195-6. [[Joyce]] becomes an exemplary ''[[Seminar XXIIIsinthome|Le Séminaire. Livre XXIII. Le sinthome, 1975-76saint homme]]''who, published in ''Ornicar?''by refusing any [[imaginary]] solution, nos 6-11, 1976-7. 9 December 1975was able to invent a new way of using [[language]] to organise [[enjoyment]].</ref>

Since meaning (sens) is already figured within the ==See Also=={{See}}* [[Borromean knot, at the intersection of the symbolic and the imaginary (see Figure 1), it follows that the function of the sinthome - intervening to knot together real, symbolic and imaginary - is inevitably beyond meaning.]]* [[Interpretation]]* ''[[Jouissance]]''||* [[Message]]* [[Psychosis]]* [[Signifier]]||* [[Subject]]* [[Symptom]]* [[Topology]]{{Also}}

==References==Next Paragraph===<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small">3. Lacan had been an enthusiastic reader of Joyce since his youth (see the <references to Joyce in Ec, 25 and S20, 37). In the 1975-6 seminar, Joyce's writing is read as an extended sinthome, a fourth term whose addition to the Borromean knot of RSI allows the subject to cohere. Faced in his childhood by the radical non-function/absence (carence) of the Name-of-the-Father, Joyce managed to avoid psychosis by deploying his art as supplÈance, as a supplementary cord in the subjective knot. Lacan focuses on Joyce's youthful 'epiphanies' (experiences of an almost hallucinatory intensity which were then recorded in enigmatic, fragmentary texts) as instances of 'radical foreclosure', in which 'the real forecloses meaning' (seminar of 16 March 1976).></div>

====Next Paragraph=====[[Category:Psychoanalysis]]The Joycean text - from the epiphany to Finnegans Wake - entailed a special relation to language; a 'destructive' refashioning of it as sinthome, the invasion of the symbolic order by the subject's private jouissance. One of [[Category:Jacques Lacan's puns, synth-homme, implies this kind of 'artificial' self-creation.]][[Category:Dictionary]][[Category:Treatment]][[Category:Practice]][[Category:Concepts]][[Category:Terms]][[Category:Real]][[Category:OK]]